The iPhone has become very popular but I have noticed that there are two types of iPhone user: one, the people who use it to its full capability; and two, those who just use it like an expensive phone. Of course, as a serious iPhone user and connoisseur of fine technology I think it's a waste when people don't use high-tech toys to their full capabilities.
So there are two things you can do to make the most of your iPhone. The first is to make use of the capabilities it has built in, and the second is to install some apps (an app is an application or program which runs on the iPhone) and get extra functionality that way.
It's surprising how many people don't use the audio capabilities of their iPhone. When it was released Apple said it was the best iPod they had ever created. That's right, the iPhone is a very good iPod and I think everyone should use that function. I'm not saying everyone should walk around listening to music all day (although that's not a bad idea for many) but their are other ways to make use of the audio abilities: podcasts, lectures, and audio books, for example.
I think that everyone could benefit from subscribing to some podcasts which fit into their interests or professional expertise. I certainly find podcasts are an essential way to keep up with some of the details in areas which interest me, such as: computers, technology, science, skepticism, philosophy, and general news. There are so many podcasts that I think everyone should find something they can use.
Photos are another area where I think the phone is useful. It's easy to synchronise an iPhoto library with a phone and I find that having my photo collection with me at all times can be quite useful. The screen is just big enough to make it suitable for displaying photos without being too big to always have with me.
Using the calendar and address book is more common because that's a traditional function of smart phones but anyone who hasn't got their calendar synchronised with their computer should do that. It works well through Apple's MobileMe service but corporate Exchange servers also work OK.
All of the above can be done with little effort using the functionality built in to the phone. To extend that there are plenty of iPhone apps. Actually "plenty" doesn't really begin to describe it because there are so many that it's difficult to sort through them and find the ones which are genuinely useful!
The iPhone is a closed platform which means Apple controls all of the programs that can be run on it. That's bad because they can block stuff they don't like and it sometimes delays availability of new stuff but it's also good because there is a quality check on new programs and a single place where they can be found (that is the iTunes app store).
So, unless you have "jailbroken" your phone you will need an account on the iTunes store to get apps. Many apps are free but you still need this account set up even if you aren't intending to buy anything. Note that this account can also be used to buy other media such as music from the store.
The biggest problem with the app store is that there is just so much there. That's a nice problem to have I guess, but it makes downloading a good starting set of apps difficult. So I have come to the rescue and am going to recommend a few of the more useful ones I own! Some of these are free and others may be paid (usually only 1 to 10 dollars) and I really can't remember which I paid for now but I hope this isn't too inconvenient.
AppBox Pro is a useful multi-purpose utility which replaces many other small single-purpose apps. I find this useful because it reduces the amount of clutter on my screen. Here's some of its more useful functions: currency conversion, date calculations, a flashlight, a level, loan calculator, ruler, translator, unit converter, and many others.
Air Sharing makes it easy to transfer files from a computer to a phone over a wifi network. Once the files are on the phone it also makes it easy to view them. It supports formats like Word, PDF, text, JPEG, etc.
AroundMe uses the iPhone's GPS to locate useful businesses and facilities around you. For example you could ask for the nearest coffee shop and it will list them in order of proximity plus provide a map and directions to get there.
Dictionary (actually I have two apps called Dictionary) is a dictionary which includes a thesaurus and pronunciation. It's very handy for looking up definitions anywhere and is much faster than using a paper dictionary.
Evernote allows you to take photos of stuff that interests you and store it "in the cloud" so you can access it from your phone of computer later. Information can be tagged and classified for easy access. You can store a smaller number of items for free or pay for greater capacity.
Facebook is the official app used to access the popular Facebook social web site. It's really well designed and makes it easy to make new posts (including photos) and read your friend's posts as well.
Google Earth is the iPhone version of the well known program. It's nice to use because you can move around the world using gestures (for example using the pinch gesture to zoom in and out).
Shazam is a neat technology demonstration and one which is also useful. It will listen to any music and tell you what it is as well as displaying the album artwork and offering various ways to download it (legally).
Starmap is currently my favourite astronomy app. It displays a map of the night sky for any location on Earth at any time so I find it useful to plan observing sessions and identify objects I may have forgotten.
Tweetie is currently my favourite Twitter iPhone app. The problem here is that there are so many good ones it's hard to choose. Anyway I find it really easy to use just to tweet my latest activities, including photos which can be easily taken with the iPhone's camera.
WordMaster is useful if you do crosswords and other word puzzles. It will look through hundreds of thousands of words in a second and give a list of matches. It has really helped with solving some puzzles which dictionaries and dedicated electronic dictionaries have failed on.
The iPhone doesn't have a built-in FM receiver but WunderRadio allows you to tune in to thousands of internet radio stations from all over the world. It works really well but you do have to be careful of streaming too much information if you have a limit on your cell data.
So that is about a third of the general apps I have installed on my phone (about 4 pages of them). I also have one page of utilities and two pages of games but I might leave a description of them for another blog entry. By the way, I wrote this on my Mac laptop because entering a lot of text is one thing I just can't do efficiently on the phone!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Asymmetry
There is often an asymmetry in the public debates over science and other reality-based subject areas. By that I mean that one side has to stick to a set of rules which limit its ability to attack the opposition and the other side enjoys free rein to say whatever they want. Look at the climate change "debate" as an example: the science side (those who agree with the consensus that climate change is real) have to stick to well proved science and the smallest deviations from this are severely criticised. But the other side (the denialists) can use political opinion, cherry picked evidence, discredited theories and any other form of misinformation which suits their purposes.
It's not just in climate change of course. No discussion of professional lying would be complete without a reference to creationists. They are the original organised professional liars and have shown everyone else how to do it. And the other obvious parallel is the tobacco industry propaganda campaign against the dangers of smoking. That was very similar campaign and the motivation (for greater profit no matter what the consequences on the majority of people) was the same.
But if the tactics these groups employ are so transparently dishonest why do they enjoy quite significant levels of support? It's simple really: they tell people what they want to hear and those people want to be deceived. That idea may sound rather ridiculous but it's basically true. There is no, or very little, debate amongst people who understand the subjects involved and are prepared to give the evidence rational and fair treatment. It's the ignorant and the biased groups in society who create the "debate" (and I use the word debate in inverted commas because it's not a real debate at all).
The asymmetry argument was used in a recent interview I heard with Michael Mann who is a well known climate scientists and has been involved with several controversies, especially the "hockey stick" graph and "Climategate". He claimed the science side has maintained its decorum while the opposition fights in the gutter, is well funded and well organised, and many of the attacks are organised by groups (such as fossil fuel industry) who have a lot to lose if climate change is taken seriously.
I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but remember that not all conspiracies are untrue. The vast majority of them are but some aren't. It seems that this one isn't because memos from the fossil fuel industry on strategies to combat the science were found and publicised by the mainstream media in the early 2000s.
So what are these unfair strategies that the opponents of climate change science use? First, I should emphasise that there are a few people who have genuine concerns about the validity of climate science. But they are very rare and the vast majority object for political, economic, or religious reasons. None of these reasons are valid. Science is based on verifiable fact and the only way to credibly dispute science is to use more science. There's almost no credible science which contradicts the consensus held by the majority of expert in this area.
One of the most effective ways the deniers attack the science is to find minor points of uncertainty or even minor errors in the science and escalate these out of all proportion and suggest they invalidate the science overall. The error in the IPCC report suggesting Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 is an example. Why is that not particularly valid as a way to attack climate science? First, it's one small point in a huge (3000 page) report; second, it's a point which doesn't come from the science but from the associated bureaucracy (the IPCC); third, no climate science depends on glaciers melting for its validity; and fourth, the glaciers are melting but just not that quickly.
The more intelligent and knowledgeable members of the denial community must know all these points yet they continue to use this method of attack. That's just fundamentally dishonest and shows how deeply disingenuous the deniers really are.
Another tactic commonly used is to pay political advocates to influence policy, both in government and in sources of relevant information. There are cases Mann cited where very poorly researched scientific papers have been published because of pressure on editorial boards. These papers have been discredited by the scientific establishment but the fact that they exist at all can be used for its propaganda value by the denialists. And the cases where reports were "adjusted" by biased people in the Bush administration are well documented.
IP addresses of commenters on blogs have been traced to political activist organisations. That's OK because everyone has the right to comment, but it should be understood that these comments come from organisations which are committed to denying climate change no matter what the facts say and they have a financial commitment to that view.
But deniers are forced into using tactics like these because they have already lost the real scientific debate. They have few real facts on their side so they must resort to misinformation and outright lies. Remember that their target audience doesn't really care if the information they are fed is true or not because they are approaching the subject from a political perspective, not a scientific one.
Most people would have no problem with engaging in a political debate on the subject. But they should start by admitting that the science says climate change is happening and that humans are almost certainly the cause. From there they can go on to whether we should try to prevent it getting worse or try to mitigate the effects, or if we are going to intervene how should that happen and should the rich countries bear more of the burden than the poor. These are fair political questions but pretending the problem doesn't exist is just totally counterproductive.
It's rare to hear an interview with a scientist where genuine resentment is so obviously expressed. Mann was just totally surprised and baffled about how people could be taken in by such obvious nonsense. Yet he shouldn't have been. The majority of people in the world believe in some sort of rubbish: religion, new-age spiritualism, UFOs, government conspiracies, the list goes on. Maybe working in an environment where rationality rules protects most scientists from the blatant nonsense that people (like myself) who have an interest in the paranormal experience.
It's obvious that climate scientists are being pressured by self-interested groups around the world. This really is a global conspiracy and one which could be far more dangerous to the world as a whole than any imaginary conspiracy from the past!
It's not just in climate change of course. No discussion of professional lying would be complete without a reference to creationists. They are the original organised professional liars and have shown everyone else how to do it. And the other obvious parallel is the tobacco industry propaganda campaign against the dangers of smoking. That was very similar campaign and the motivation (for greater profit no matter what the consequences on the majority of people) was the same.
But if the tactics these groups employ are so transparently dishonest why do they enjoy quite significant levels of support? It's simple really: they tell people what they want to hear and those people want to be deceived. That idea may sound rather ridiculous but it's basically true. There is no, or very little, debate amongst people who understand the subjects involved and are prepared to give the evidence rational and fair treatment. It's the ignorant and the biased groups in society who create the "debate" (and I use the word debate in inverted commas because it's not a real debate at all).
The asymmetry argument was used in a recent interview I heard with Michael Mann who is a well known climate scientists and has been involved with several controversies, especially the "hockey stick" graph and "Climategate". He claimed the science side has maintained its decorum while the opposition fights in the gutter, is well funded and well organised, and many of the attacks are organised by groups (such as fossil fuel industry) who have a lot to lose if climate change is taken seriously.
I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but remember that not all conspiracies are untrue. The vast majority of them are but some aren't. It seems that this one isn't because memos from the fossil fuel industry on strategies to combat the science were found and publicised by the mainstream media in the early 2000s.
So what are these unfair strategies that the opponents of climate change science use? First, I should emphasise that there are a few people who have genuine concerns about the validity of climate science. But they are very rare and the vast majority object for political, economic, or religious reasons. None of these reasons are valid. Science is based on verifiable fact and the only way to credibly dispute science is to use more science. There's almost no credible science which contradicts the consensus held by the majority of expert in this area.
One of the most effective ways the deniers attack the science is to find minor points of uncertainty or even minor errors in the science and escalate these out of all proportion and suggest they invalidate the science overall. The error in the IPCC report suggesting Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 is an example. Why is that not particularly valid as a way to attack climate science? First, it's one small point in a huge (3000 page) report; second, it's a point which doesn't come from the science but from the associated bureaucracy (the IPCC); third, no climate science depends on glaciers melting for its validity; and fourth, the glaciers are melting but just not that quickly.
The more intelligent and knowledgeable members of the denial community must know all these points yet they continue to use this method of attack. That's just fundamentally dishonest and shows how deeply disingenuous the deniers really are.
Another tactic commonly used is to pay political advocates to influence policy, both in government and in sources of relevant information. There are cases Mann cited where very poorly researched scientific papers have been published because of pressure on editorial boards. These papers have been discredited by the scientific establishment but the fact that they exist at all can be used for its propaganda value by the denialists. And the cases where reports were "adjusted" by biased people in the Bush administration are well documented.
IP addresses of commenters on blogs have been traced to political activist organisations. That's OK because everyone has the right to comment, but it should be understood that these comments come from organisations which are committed to denying climate change no matter what the facts say and they have a financial commitment to that view.
But deniers are forced into using tactics like these because they have already lost the real scientific debate. They have few real facts on their side so they must resort to misinformation and outright lies. Remember that their target audience doesn't really care if the information they are fed is true or not because they are approaching the subject from a political perspective, not a scientific one.
Most people would have no problem with engaging in a political debate on the subject. But they should start by admitting that the science says climate change is happening and that humans are almost certainly the cause. From there they can go on to whether we should try to prevent it getting worse or try to mitigate the effects, or if we are going to intervene how should that happen and should the rich countries bear more of the burden than the poor. These are fair political questions but pretending the problem doesn't exist is just totally counterproductive.
It's rare to hear an interview with a scientist where genuine resentment is so obviously expressed. Mann was just totally surprised and baffled about how people could be taken in by such obvious nonsense. Yet he shouldn't have been. The majority of people in the world believe in some sort of rubbish: religion, new-age spiritualism, UFOs, government conspiracies, the list goes on. Maybe working in an environment where rationality rules protects most scientists from the blatant nonsense that people (like myself) who have an interest in the paranormal experience.
It's obvious that climate scientists are being pressured by self-interested groups around the world. This really is a global conspiracy and one which could be far more dangerous to the world as a whole than any imaginary conspiracy from the past!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Goodbye God
Why would an atheist want to see the end of God? As I've said on many occasions in the past, I don't hate God - how could I when I don't think he exists? But I've thought about this a bit more and I have decided that yes, I do think he exists and I do hate him. I don't think there's a supernatural personal god of course but I do think there's an imaginary construct which humans have created to serve various purposes and it's that god that I dislike.
So I think it's time for God to die. He has outlived his usefulness (if he ever had any) and it's time to move on. It's unrealistic to think the death of god will be a quick process because he exists like a mind virus in so many people's thoughts, but I think it will happen. I guess it will be a slow, painful death. Oh dear, poor God!
Many atheists, rationalists and skeptics (in other words members of what we often refer to as the free thought community) have noted the recent rise in prominence of atheism and anti-religious figures (note that atheism and anti-religiosity aren't the same thing). And judging by the shrill cries of complaint from the community of believers I think they might be starting to feel the pressure too.
It's their own fault. The Catholic Church seems to be doing everything to make it one of the most despised organisations on the planet thanks to it's idiotic leadership and constant revelations (I love that word in this context) of perverted behaviour. And the attempts of the equally repulsive fundamentalists to push their outdated views on everyone else has gained them a lot of enemies too.
Maybe the internet is a biased source but in most of the debates and commentaries I see the atheist side seems to be better represented, both in numbers and in skill and knowledge. Of course there are still the crazy web sites like "Answers in Genesis" which spread lies and misinformation and allow no comments or corrections, but these tend to be on the periphery rather than being central to most people's internet experience (naturally that isn't the case for creationists),
Perhaps the major trend being seen is the refusal of an increasing number of critics to take an accommodationist approach to this subject. Previously many people (Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould being two good examples) who strongly supported science would avoid criticism of religion even though it was clearly an opponent of science in many cases. That's not happening any more. Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and many others are all high profile critics of religion.
I've listened to a few interesting podcasts and interviews on theology and philosophy recently and it surprises me how otherwise intelligent people just switch off their logical minds when it comes to religion. In every case they start with the idea that a god exists and twist the facts to fit. Even when they reach the point that their beliefs are obviously incorrect or contradictory they just continue trying to force god belief in to fitting the facts.
Great minds such as Newton, Descartes, Calvin and Francis Collins today all suffer from this. They were perfectly capable of analysing and understanding other subjects but when it comes to God their arguments suddenly make as much sense as a five year old trying to justify belief in the Easter Bunny. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Belief in a god isn't always bad, of course. Sometimes it is a useful delusion and can help people who are otherwise incapable of managing socially or psychologically. But I don't think it's a good thing on balance. God should stay in his place: as a useful imaginary device which people can use for their own amusement and benefit. But he has escaped his role as servant and has become the master. He controls the same people who created and perpetuated him and they in turn try to control the rest of us.
And just the general illogical silly way that believers think can be dangerous too. It's not coincidental that there is a link between belief in creationism and global warming denial. Both are anti-intellectual, rebellious against reason, and make no sense when looked at reasonably.
So it must stop. God must die, or at least go back into his cage until he is required to perform some menial task for a believer. Goodbye God.
So I think it's time for God to die. He has outlived his usefulness (if he ever had any) and it's time to move on. It's unrealistic to think the death of god will be a quick process because he exists like a mind virus in so many people's thoughts, but I think it will happen. I guess it will be a slow, painful death. Oh dear, poor God!
Many atheists, rationalists and skeptics (in other words members of what we often refer to as the free thought community) have noted the recent rise in prominence of atheism and anti-religious figures (note that atheism and anti-religiosity aren't the same thing). And judging by the shrill cries of complaint from the community of believers I think they might be starting to feel the pressure too.
It's their own fault. The Catholic Church seems to be doing everything to make it one of the most despised organisations on the planet thanks to it's idiotic leadership and constant revelations (I love that word in this context) of perverted behaviour. And the attempts of the equally repulsive fundamentalists to push their outdated views on everyone else has gained them a lot of enemies too.
Maybe the internet is a biased source but in most of the debates and commentaries I see the atheist side seems to be better represented, both in numbers and in skill and knowledge. Of course there are still the crazy web sites like "Answers in Genesis" which spread lies and misinformation and allow no comments or corrections, but these tend to be on the periphery rather than being central to most people's internet experience (naturally that isn't the case for creationists),
Perhaps the major trend being seen is the refusal of an increasing number of critics to take an accommodationist approach to this subject. Previously many people (Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould being two good examples) who strongly supported science would avoid criticism of religion even though it was clearly an opponent of science in many cases. That's not happening any more. Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and many others are all high profile critics of religion.
I've listened to a few interesting podcasts and interviews on theology and philosophy recently and it surprises me how otherwise intelligent people just switch off their logical minds when it comes to religion. In every case they start with the idea that a god exists and twist the facts to fit. Even when they reach the point that their beliefs are obviously incorrect or contradictory they just continue trying to force god belief in to fitting the facts.
Great minds such as Newton, Descartes, Calvin and Francis Collins today all suffer from this. They were perfectly capable of analysing and understanding other subjects but when it comes to God their arguments suddenly make as much sense as a five year old trying to justify belief in the Easter Bunny. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Belief in a god isn't always bad, of course. Sometimes it is a useful delusion and can help people who are otherwise incapable of managing socially or psychologically. But I don't think it's a good thing on balance. God should stay in his place: as a useful imaginary device which people can use for their own amusement and benefit. But he has escaped his role as servant and has become the master. He controls the same people who created and perpetuated him and they in turn try to control the rest of us.
And just the general illogical silly way that believers think can be dangerous too. It's not coincidental that there is a link between belief in creationism and global warming denial. Both are anti-intellectual, rebellious against reason, and make no sense when looked at reasonably.
So it must stop. God must die, or at least go back into his cage until he is required to perform some menial task for a believer. Goodbye God.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Everything's Good
A view I have advocated often in this blog is that capitalism isn't the best economic system for our modern society. The issue became more prominent to me recently when I heard that the amount spent on advertising tobacco in the US is greater than what is spent on the space program. I'm not totally sure this is true because I have found conflicting information on the topic but it seems likely that there are huge amounts spent by the private sector for various frivolous purposes.
And then there was the economic crisis which was primarily caused by private financial organisations engaging in ridiculous and meaningless deals designed entirely to make money without contributing anything of any real value to society. And to add insult to injury the incompetent, greedy bankers involved continued to be paid huge bonuses, presumably financed from government handouts.
I've heard defenders of the system say that businesses and business people deserve the money they have because they are successful. But they define successful as making more money and they say they make the money because they're successful. It's another circular argument like the types of logic used by creationists and other groups who haven't really thought through their beliefs carefully enough.
We are facing many problems today and there doesn't seem to be much progress being made in solving them. It's not that they can't be solved, it's more that the people with the most money don't want to solve them. There's plenty of food to feed everyone for example, but the wasteful capitalist food production and distribution system doesn't work to distribute it fairly.
And we have problems with energy production and global climate change but there's not enough people researching new energy production technologies. Not only that but less people are training for science and technology careers because it's a lot easier to get a job in commerce and you get paid a lot better there.
So the wrong behaviour is rewarded and potentially more beneficial actions are stifled. Capitalism really doesn't work but what's the alternative? People quite correctly point out that alternatives such as Soviet Russia failed so that doesn't seem to be a viable option. But there are other options. I'm not totally sure what they are but I think the first step is to admit that we need to look for them. Pretending that everything's good while things really get worse just isn't good enough.
And then there was the economic crisis which was primarily caused by private financial organisations engaging in ridiculous and meaningless deals designed entirely to make money without contributing anything of any real value to society. And to add insult to injury the incompetent, greedy bankers involved continued to be paid huge bonuses, presumably financed from government handouts.
I've heard defenders of the system say that businesses and business people deserve the money they have because they are successful. But they define successful as making more money and they say they make the money because they're successful. It's another circular argument like the types of logic used by creationists and other groups who haven't really thought through their beliefs carefully enough.
We are facing many problems today and there doesn't seem to be much progress being made in solving them. It's not that they can't be solved, it's more that the people with the most money don't want to solve them. There's plenty of food to feed everyone for example, but the wasteful capitalist food production and distribution system doesn't work to distribute it fairly.
And we have problems with energy production and global climate change but there's not enough people researching new energy production technologies. Not only that but less people are training for science and technology careers because it's a lot easier to get a job in commerce and you get paid a lot better there.
So the wrong behaviour is rewarded and potentially more beneficial actions are stifled. Capitalism really doesn't work but what's the alternative? People quite correctly point out that alternatives such as Soviet Russia failed so that doesn't seem to be a viable option. But there are other options. I'm not totally sure what they are but I think the first step is to admit that we need to look for them. Pretending that everything's good while things really get worse just isn't good enough.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Greater Good?
Being acquitted on charges of destruction of government property because the accused believed they were acting to prevent other's suffering is an interesting precedent. It happened here in New Zealand when three protestors who destroyed a plastic cover over a US spy satellite dish were acquitted of the charges by a jury.
It has happened in other countries where protestors have also been let off, or given reduced sentences, after performing actions motivated by what hey believe is achieving the greater good. Damaging spy bases and fighter aircraft is one thing but there is a limit to how far this can be taken. In the US an anti-abortion campaigner was convicted by a judge of murdering an abortion doctor after using a similar defence.
I'm actually quite surprised with this result, although I think that jury trials might be a bit of a lottery in many ways. I think its important that there is freedom to protest against this sort of activity and the fact that it was a US base and our current government is dedicated to closer alignment with the US makes it even more critical.
Maybe it was the fact that the three people all came from "respectable" backgrounds that helped: one was a teacher, another a Dominican friar, and the last a farmer. If they had been students or unemployed I suspect the outcome might have been different!
Its actually quite difficult to see how damaging a spy base dish could lead to direct reduction in suffering of others. The connection is surely rather obscure which makes the acquittal even more bizarre.
In fact, I don't think people should be able to go around breaking the law and not face any consequences. For a start that makes the protest action less meaningful and it also encourages disingenuous use of the excuse of protest by people who just want to carry out an unlawful act.
So I think these people should have been found guilty but only faced a light sentence. That way there would have been less justification for avoiding punishment of future acts of destruction (which might not be so positively motivated) and also the protestors would have made a greater sacrifice for their cause.
A poll on the "Stuff" web site shows most New Zealanders agree: 23% thought the "greater good" defence should be allowed and 77% thought it shouldn't. The total of votes (when I got this data) was 7610.
This isn't really going to make any difference to the US running a secret base in our country with few requirements of accountability. The base is still operating and doing things we know nothing about. Maybe the information it gathers does lead to significant suffering but we would never know.
On the other hand this is a symbolic gesture and one that the conservative government here probably would have liked to have seen punished. The fact that the "Waihopai Three" got off the charges at least is a sign that there are some forms of protest that can succeed even against the greatest country on the planet.
It has happened in other countries where protestors have also been let off, or given reduced sentences, after performing actions motivated by what hey believe is achieving the greater good. Damaging spy bases and fighter aircraft is one thing but there is a limit to how far this can be taken. In the US an anti-abortion campaigner was convicted by a judge of murdering an abortion doctor after using a similar defence.
I'm actually quite surprised with this result, although I think that jury trials might be a bit of a lottery in many ways. I think its important that there is freedom to protest against this sort of activity and the fact that it was a US base and our current government is dedicated to closer alignment with the US makes it even more critical.
Maybe it was the fact that the three people all came from "respectable" backgrounds that helped: one was a teacher, another a Dominican friar, and the last a farmer. If they had been students or unemployed I suspect the outcome might have been different!
Its actually quite difficult to see how damaging a spy base dish could lead to direct reduction in suffering of others. The connection is surely rather obscure which makes the acquittal even more bizarre.
In fact, I don't think people should be able to go around breaking the law and not face any consequences. For a start that makes the protest action less meaningful and it also encourages disingenuous use of the excuse of protest by people who just want to carry out an unlawful act.
So I think these people should have been found guilty but only faced a light sentence. That way there would have been less justification for avoiding punishment of future acts of destruction (which might not be so positively motivated) and also the protestors would have made a greater sacrifice for their cause.
A poll on the "Stuff" web site shows most New Zealanders agree: 23% thought the "greater good" defence should be allowed and 77% thought it shouldn't. The total of votes (when I got this data) was 7610.
This isn't really going to make any difference to the US running a secret base in our country with few requirements of accountability. The base is still operating and doing things we know nothing about. Maybe the information it gathers does lead to significant suffering but we would never know.
On the other hand this is a symbolic gesture and one that the conservative government here probably would have liked to have seen punished. The fact that the "Waihopai Three" got off the charges at least is a sign that there are some forms of protest that can succeed even against the greatest country on the planet.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Eerie Silence
Where is everyone? It's a big universe sure, but we've been looking for 50 years now and still there's no real sign that intelligent life might exist in other parts of the universe.
It's not as if we are continually finding reasons that life shouldn't exist - it's quite the opposite: new discoveries on other planets and moons inside our solar system, observations of planets orbiting other stars, and discoveries of weird extremophile life forms on Earth all make it look like life should be fairly common. And if life is fairly common then you might expect that intelligent life would arise fairly frequently too.
Of course, there's a lot of doubt and speculation in what I said above but I have never really heard anyone make a good argument for life being rare and the same applies (to a lesser extent) for arguments against the appearance of intelligence.
I read an article featuring Paul Davies, a physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist who has just completed a book titled “The Eerie Silence”. He's the director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, the co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, and the chairman of the SETI Post-Detection Task Group, so he's one of the best qualified SETI experts. He's suggesting a broader approach to the search.
There have been two interesting radio signals in the 50 years SETI researchers have been looking. One, known as the “Wow” signal, was 72-second pulse detected in 1977; and another, known as Lorimer’s pulse, lasted just a half-millisecond. That's not very impressive for all the effort put in and all the processing power available with the latest computer analysis.
I should mention at this point that I have been involved with the SETI@Home project for 10 years now and my computers have performed a million trillion calculations in that time. All for nothing. Note: In case you don't know, the SETI@Home project involves people using their computers to analyse data provided by the University of Berkeley who collect it from a radio telescope. The computers look for unusual signals which might indicate technology created by an alien intelligence.
There are other areas of controversial science where experiments have provided no credible positive results over even longer periods of time. For example, ESP, homeopathy, and UFOs. So does that mean that the search for intelligence is just another crazy fringe pseudoscience? I don't think so because those other experiments should have found an effect if it existed but SETI is really like looking for a needle in a haystack, except the haystack is the whole universe and we don't know what the needle looks like!
And SETI researchers admit they have no positive results. Compare that with many paranormal investigators who cherry pick the facts, change the standards of evidence, and redefine the scientific method to get the results they want.
After so long you might think that SETI researchers might be just about ready to give up but that doesn't seem to be the case. Collecting and analysing the data provides scientific results beyond the original purpose of SETI, and negative results are important in themselves anyway.
Then there's just the thought that life might exist elsewhere in the universe. Many people have claimed this would be the greatest discovery ever. I think they could be right although I suspect the average person might be underwhelmed by the discovery of anomalous radio signals. It's not quite the same as a visit from a mighty alien space ship as is often portrayed in science fiction stories!
So the eerie silence continues but I think it will be broken in the next 50 years. There are so many new ways to look for life - better radio signal analysis; investigation of Mars, Europa, and Titan; observation of extra-solar planets - that I'm fairly sure something will be found.
It's not as if we are continually finding reasons that life shouldn't exist - it's quite the opposite: new discoveries on other planets and moons inside our solar system, observations of planets orbiting other stars, and discoveries of weird extremophile life forms on Earth all make it look like life should be fairly common. And if life is fairly common then you might expect that intelligent life would arise fairly frequently too.
Of course, there's a lot of doubt and speculation in what I said above but I have never really heard anyone make a good argument for life being rare and the same applies (to a lesser extent) for arguments against the appearance of intelligence.
I read an article featuring Paul Davies, a physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist who has just completed a book titled “The Eerie Silence”. He's the director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, the co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, and the chairman of the SETI Post-Detection Task Group, so he's one of the best qualified SETI experts. He's suggesting a broader approach to the search.
There have been two interesting radio signals in the 50 years SETI researchers have been looking. One, known as the “Wow” signal, was 72-second pulse detected in 1977; and another, known as Lorimer’s pulse, lasted just a half-millisecond. That's not very impressive for all the effort put in and all the processing power available with the latest computer analysis.
I should mention at this point that I have been involved with the SETI@Home project for 10 years now and my computers have performed a million trillion calculations in that time. All for nothing. Note: In case you don't know, the SETI@Home project involves people using their computers to analyse data provided by the University of Berkeley who collect it from a radio telescope. The computers look for unusual signals which might indicate technology created by an alien intelligence.
There are other areas of controversial science where experiments have provided no credible positive results over even longer periods of time. For example, ESP, homeopathy, and UFOs. So does that mean that the search for intelligence is just another crazy fringe pseudoscience? I don't think so because those other experiments should have found an effect if it existed but SETI is really like looking for a needle in a haystack, except the haystack is the whole universe and we don't know what the needle looks like!
And SETI researchers admit they have no positive results. Compare that with many paranormal investigators who cherry pick the facts, change the standards of evidence, and redefine the scientific method to get the results they want.
After so long you might think that SETI researchers might be just about ready to give up but that doesn't seem to be the case. Collecting and analysing the data provides scientific results beyond the original purpose of SETI, and negative results are important in themselves anyway.
Then there's just the thought that life might exist elsewhere in the universe. Many people have claimed this would be the greatest discovery ever. I think they could be right although I suspect the average person might be underwhelmed by the discovery of anomalous radio signals. It's not quite the same as a visit from a mighty alien space ship as is often portrayed in science fiction stories!
So the eerie silence continues but I think it will be broken in the next 50 years. There are so many new ways to look for life - better radio signal analysis; investigation of Mars, Europa, and Titan; observation of extra-solar planets - that I'm fairly sure something will be found.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Bible in Schools Revisited
I just listened to a Radio New Zealand podcast which discussed the future of teaching religion in New Zealand schools. Its a subject I have mentioned here a couple of times in the past, including in the entry "Bible in Schools" which attracted a record (for this blog) 87 comments!
In that entry I said that I supported the Bible (and other aspects of Christianity) being taught in New Zealand schools because kids tended to be able to see when the material they were being taught wasn't necessarily 100% accurate. I also said I would have liked to have seen other religions being taught as well.
My thoughts on this subject have hardened somewhat. In fact I don't think the Bible should be taught in schools any longer. I do think that religion should be taught and stories from the Bible should be discussed in the context of their literary merit and their possible application to morality but I wouldn't want to see Bible stores being presented as if they really happened (except in the rare case when they are accepted as real history but I can't even think of any that I would put in that category).
According to current legislation New Zealand schools should reflect the wishes and world views of the community they exist in. This may be the law but I don't think its a very good idea because it means that kids could be disadvantaged if they live in a community with a silly world view (such as creationism or other forms of superstition).
Schools should be presenting a view which reflects the values of the country as a whole and should try to avoid world views which are immoral or irrelevant. Of course the opposite view also has some merit: that schools should offer some variety and not just parrot whatever the current form of political correctness dictates. Maybe there's room for a compromise there.
The podcast mentioned the case of Christian propaganda in schools causing great confusion to some pupils. I personally think its immoral to tell young kids that Jesus is the King of the World. That's just stupid but the parent can't tell their kids that without causing conflict between what the teacher and what the parent is saying.
It is usually possible to opt out of religious material being presented at schools. Why is that? Its not possible to opt out of other subjects. Also, religious education is only possible by exploiting a loophole in the law where the school is technically closed while the instruction takes place. Don't these factors indicate that this isn't instruction at all but a form of disinformation?
I do agree that education about Christianity is important because a lot of New Zealand's history, culture, law, art, and politics cannot be understood without that background. But that education should follow the history and politics of Christianity and stay away from unsubstantiated nonsense like Jesus being the King of anything.
And other religions and philosophy in general should also be covered, including the history of Islam. Maybe if other religions were better understood there might be less conflict between the world's belief systems. Or to take a more cynical view: if you see Islam as the enemy its even more important to understand their motivations!
Different groups have wildly different ideas on what form religious education should take but there was one anecdote mentioned in the podcast which we need to do something about. A fairly senior student told his teacher that he didn't know why we celebrate Easter. He had never heard the Christian crucifixion story at all.
I think the crucifixion story is basically fiction but we should still know that it exists. And we should also know that it originally came from pagan fertility celebrations before that. Those are important social historical aspects of our society.
Another issue is morality. Many Christians insist that morality cannot exist without religion. I would disagree and say that it is actually difficult for it to exist with religion, but either way I think morality and ethics are important subjects. So I think more philosophy should be taught and that would naturally branch into theology on occasions.
Its possible to talk about religion sensibly and I have no objection to most of the discussion being about Christianity because I freely admit its the most important religion here by far. But the history and morality of Christianity is one thing, making silly statements like "Jesus is the King of the World" is just totally unacceptable!
In that entry I said that I supported the Bible (and other aspects of Christianity) being taught in New Zealand schools because kids tended to be able to see when the material they were being taught wasn't necessarily 100% accurate. I also said I would have liked to have seen other religions being taught as well.
My thoughts on this subject have hardened somewhat. In fact I don't think the Bible should be taught in schools any longer. I do think that religion should be taught and stories from the Bible should be discussed in the context of their literary merit and their possible application to morality but I wouldn't want to see Bible stores being presented as if they really happened (except in the rare case when they are accepted as real history but I can't even think of any that I would put in that category).
According to current legislation New Zealand schools should reflect the wishes and world views of the community they exist in. This may be the law but I don't think its a very good idea because it means that kids could be disadvantaged if they live in a community with a silly world view (such as creationism or other forms of superstition).
Schools should be presenting a view which reflects the values of the country as a whole and should try to avoid world views which are immoral or irrelevant. Of course the opposite view also has some merit: that schools should offer some variety and not just parrot whatever the current form of political correctness dictates. Maybe there's room for a compromise there.
The podcast mentioned the case of Christian propaganda in schools causing great confusion to some pupils. I personally think its immoral to tell young kids that Jesus is the King of the World. That's just stupid but the parent can't tell their kids that without causing conflict between what the teacher and what the parent is saying.
It is usually possible to opt out of religious material being presented at schools. Why is that? Its not possible to opt out of other subjects. Also, religious education is only possible by exploiting a loophole in the law where the school is technically closed while the instruction takes place. Don't these factors indicate that this isn't instruction at all but a form of disinformation?
I do agree that education about Christianity is important because a lot of New Zealand's history, culture, law, art, and politics cannot be understood without that background. But that education should follow the history and politics of Christianity and stay away from unsubstantiated nonsense like Jesus being the King of anything.
And other religions and philosophy in general should also be covered, including the history of Islam. Maybe if other religions were better understood there might be less conflict between the world's belief systems. Or to take a more cynical view: if you see Islam as the enemy its even more important to understand their motivations!
Different groups have wildly different ideas on what form religious education should take but there was one anecdote mentioned in the podcast which we need to do something about. A fairly senior student told his teacher that he didn't know why we celebrate Easter. He had never heard the Christian crucifixion story at all.
I think the crucifixion story is basically fiction but we should still know that it exists. And we should also know that it originally came from pagan fertility celebrations before that. Those are important social historical aspects of our society.
Another issue is morality. Many Christians insist that morality cannot exist without religion. I would disagree and say that it is actually difficult for it to exist with religion, but either way I think morality and ethics are important subjects. So I think more philosophy should be taught and that would naturally branch into theology on occasions.
Its possible to talk about religion sensibly and I have no objection to most of the discussion being about Christianity because I freely admit its the most important religion here by far. But the history and morality of Christianity is one thing, making silly statements like "Jesus is the King of the World" is just totally unacceptable!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Which Century?
Which century are the Catholic Church stuck in? Sometimes it seems like they're making progress against the dogma and superstition they have traditionally believed. They officially believe evolution is real, for example, even though they think God guides the process which is fairly ridiculous in itself.
But then they make complete idiots of themselves by showing they are still stuck in the dark ages (and the dark ages were primarily caused by the Catholic Church preventing progress). For example, recently they showed that they take exorcism seriously.
Believing in exorcism is stupid enough but using demonic possession as an excuse for the horrendous behaviour of various members of the church is just evil. But that's what they've done.
The Vatican's "chief exorcist", 85 year old Father Gabriele Amorth, has said that the sex abuse scandals which have happened in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican". Well of course that's proof. It could never be because of the sick ethics and bizarre social context priests are expected to live by, could it?
Its odd really because guilt is one of the primary tools the church uses to control its members and the idea that everyone is a sinner seems central to Christianity. Saying that its really the devil's fault seems to contradict this idea. Still, I guess fear of the devil is a fairly efficient tool for controlling the masses as well!
There must be plenty of demons to go around too because there's so much abuse by members of the church, and there are plenty of officials who deliberately hide the abuse when it happens. I guess they must be possessed too.
In fact, Father Amorth has performed 70,000 exorcisms in 25 years and still can't keep on top of the problem! Maybe the Vatican should hire some more exorcists and they might be able to improve the behaviour of their members.
Actually, doing the maths, Father Amorth must be a busy man. Even if he works every day of the year he must be performing an exorcism every hour of his working day. No wonder the poor guy looks so worn out and tired. All of that shouting and throwing holy water around and other cool stuff would be enough to tire out any one!
Well, that was fun. Ridiculing people who believe abject nonsense always makes me feel good. I'd just like to finish by explaining a comment I made earlier: that belief in god-guided evolution is ridiculous.
Anyone who knows much about evolution will know that just about every structure in living things, every process, every behaviour falls a bit short of perfection. In fact, in many cases it goes away beyond that and its obvious that the "design" of living things is totally bizarre!
If god guided evolution then he didn't do a very good job. In fact I think we should fire him and just let pseudo-random processes like natural selection take over instead. Wait a minute... maybe that's already happened!
But then they make complete idiots of themselves by showing they are still stuck in the dark ages (and the dark ages were primarily caused by the Catholic Church preventing progress). For example, recently they showed that they take exorcism seriously.
Believing in exorcism is stupid enough but using demonic possession as an excuse for the horrendous behaviour of various members of the church is just evil. But that's what they've done.
The Vatican's "chief exorcist", 85 year old Father Gabriele Amorth, has said that the sex abuse scandals which have happened in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican". Well of course that's proof. It could never be because of the sick ethics and bizarre social context priests are expected to live by, could it?
Its odd really because guilt is one of the primary tools the church uses to control its members and the idea that everyone is a sinner seems central to Christianity. Saying that its really the devil's fault seems to contradict this idea. Still, I guess fear of the devil is a fairly efficient tool for controlling the masses as well!
There must be plenty of demons to go around too because there's so much abuse by members of the church, and there are plenty of officials who deliberately hide the abuse when it happens. I guess they must be possessed too.
In fact, Father Amorth has performed 70,000 exorcisms in 25 years and still can't keep on top of the problem! Maybe the Vatican should hire some more exorcists and they might be able to improve the behaviour of their members.
Actually, doing the maths, Father Amorth must be a busy man. Even if he works every day of the year he must be performing an exorcism every hour of his working day. No wonder the poor guy looks so worn out and tired. All of that shouting and throwing holy water around and other cool stuff would be enough to tire out any one!
Well, that was fun. Ridiculing people who believe abject nonsense always makes me feel good. I'd just like to finish by explaining a comment I made earlier: that belief in god-guided evolution is ridiculous.
Anyone who knows much about evolution will know that just about every structure in living things, every process, every behaviour falls a bit short of perfection. In fact, in many cases it goes away beyond that and its obvious that the "design" of living things is totally bizarre!
If god guided evolution then he didn't do a very good job. In fact I think we should fire him and just let pseudo-random processes like natural selection take over instead. Wait a minute... maybe that's already happened!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
A Painful Interview
I just listened to an interview featuring Theresa Gattung, the previous CEO of Telecom New Zealand, who has just released a book, titled "Bird on a Wire". It might be an interesting book to read because it sounds as if she hasn't hesitated to be critical of the people she sees as being to blame for the problems Telecom (which is still New Zealand's biggest company as far as I know) is currently experiencing.
Most of what she said in the interview (I haven't read the book yet) wasn't necessarily untrue, but it was obviously misleading in that it came from her very biased viewpoint. I must say that there were some things I agreed with though.
So what did I agree with? That the current top management of Telecom, including the new CEO, are being paid too much. Everyone - except the really extreme right wingers and libertarians - would probably agree with this. It's obscene to pay someone $7 million per year to run a company which was given a monopoly situation for years and has captured a large part of the market as a result and then to mismanage large sections of it.
So what has been mismanaged? The XT network is the most obvious example. Experts say that such a major disaster has occurred nowhere else in the western world. Alcatel-Lucent has taken the blame but is it really their fault? I suspect not. I suspect that Telecom tried to implement the new network with insufficient hardware, to save money, and now they have created this situation themselves.
Telecom's internet service has consistently been found to be the worst in New Zealand. The last survey I heard placed it at the bottom of customer satisfaction three years in a row. Again, they provide the absolute minimum necessary to maximise profit while placing their customers near the bottom of their list of priorities.
The emergency system has failed more often than it should as well. Not only that, but when it did fail Telecom didn't even have a monitoring system to detect that and had to be told about it by the emergency services.
So yes, she's right. Paul Reynolds is paid too much. Actually I wouldn't pay him anything. I'd send him back to where he came from! But I wouldn't hire someone like Gattung to take over because it's largely because of her gross incompetence and dishonesty that Telecom is in the position its in now.
She likes to blame the government for everything that went wrong but that's easy to do. Everyone has to work within government regulations, especially a company like Telecom which should never have been sold to the private sector to start with. That's another thing she got right when she said New Zealanders would be far happier with Telecom as a state-owned enterprise (SOE). I would go further and say all important infrastructure should be run that way because it gives a good compromise between too much and too little government control.
She likes to blame everyone else for problems she caused and the ultimate cop-out came when she claimed she was subject to more criticism and scrutiny when she was CEO because she's a woman. Yeah sure, it would be nothing to do with her dirty, underhand tricks and lack of ethics would it? of course not! Using that excuse is the ultimate in cowardly dishonesty!
Its undoubtedly true that Telecom's problems are partly due to government regulation but she really can't use that as an excuse. Originally the company was given the opportunity to act as a monopoly and when that right (which was given to them by the government) was taken away again they really shouldn't have gone around saying that was unfair.
And the claim that there was no warning that the government wanted the Telecom monopoly broken is very disingenuous. I remember at the time that it was clear to everyone and Telecom seemed to be deliberately defying the government by avoiding their obligations. If they suffered because of that then its their own fault.
Gattung thinks the government's plan to put high-speed internet into New Zealand homes should be handed to Telecom to implement. She says Telecom has gained its dominant position through providing good services, that it has demonstrated its competence with technology, and that it's an obvious partner to work with the government. The fact that she really seems to believe these three points shows how out of touch she really is!
Apparently she's into some sort of new age healing nonsense and the general feeling I got when I listened to her is she's not particularly smart. In fact I found her almost painful to listen to: very fake and rather shallow. Actually I really couldn't even listen to the end of the interview.
One last thing. You can really tell that a company's failure has been noticed by the public in general when jokes like this start to circulate: "Did you hear about Steven Spielberg's latest move? It's about an alien who couldn't call home. Its called "XT".
Most of what she said in the interview (I haven't read the book yet) wasn't necessarily untrue, but it was obviously misleading in that it came from her very biased viewpoint. I must say that there were some things I agreed with though.
So what did I agree with? That the current top management of Telecom, including the new CEO, are being paid too much. Everyone - except the really extreme right wingers and libertarians - would probably agree with this. It's obscene to pay someone $7 million per year to run a company which was given a monopoly situation for years and has captured a large part of the market as a result and then to mismanage large sections of it.
So what has been mismanaged? The XT network is the most obvious example. Experts say that such a major disaster has occurred nowhere else in the western world. Alcatel-Lucent has taken the blame but is it really their fault? I suspect not. I suspect that Telecom tried to implement the new network with insufficient hardware, to save money, and now they have created this situation themselves.
Telecom's internet service has consistently been found to be the worst in New Zealand. The last survey I heard placed it at the bottom of customer satisfaction three years in a row. Again, they provide the absolute minimum necessary to maximise profit while placing their customers near the bottom of their list of priorities.
The emergency system has failed more often than it should as well. Not only that, but when it did fail Telecom didn't even have a monitoring system to detect that and had to be told about it by the emergency services.
So yes, she's right. Paul Reynolds is paid too much. Actually I wouldn't pay him anything. I'd send him back to where he came from! But I wouldn't hire someone like Gattung to take over because it's largely because of her gross incompetence and dishonesty that Telecom is in the position its in now.
She likes to blame the government for everything that went wrong but that's easy to do. Everyone has to work within government regulations, especially a company like Telecom which should never have been sold to the private sector to start with. That's another thing she got right when she said New Zealanders would be far happier with Telecom as a state-owned enterprise (SOE). I would go further and say all important infrastructure should be run that way because it gives a good compromise between too much and too little government control.
She likes to blame everyone else for problems she caused and the ultimate cop-out came when she claimed she was subject to more criticism and scrutiny when she was CEO because she's a woman. Yeah sure, it would be nothing to do with her dirty, underhand tricks and lack of ethics would it? of course not! Using that excuse is the ultimate in cowardly dishonesty!
Its undoubtedly true that Telecom's problems are partly due to government regulation but she really can't use that as an excuse. Originally the company was given the opportunity to act as a monopoly and when that right (which was given to them by the government) was taken away again they really shouldn't have gone around saying that was unfair.
And the claim that there was no warning that the government wanted the Telecom monopoly broken is very disingenuous. I remember at the time that it was clear to everyone and Telecom seemed to be deliberately defying the government by avoiding their obligations. If they suffered because of that then its their own fault.
Gattung thinks the government's plan to put high-speed internet into New Zealand homes should be handed to Telecom to implement. She says Telecom has gained its dominant position through providing good services, that it has demonstrated its competence with technology, and that it's an obvious partner to work with the government. The fact that she really seems to believe these three points shows how out of touch she really is!
Apparently she's into some sort of new age healing nonsense and the general feeling I got when I listened to her is she's not particularly smart. In fact I found her almost painful to listen to: very fake and rather shallow. Actually I really couldn't even listen to the end of the interview.
One last thing. You can really tell that a company's failure has been noticed by the public in general when jokes like this start to circulate: "Did you hear about Steven Spielberg's latest move? It's about an alien who couldn't call home. Its called "XT".
You WIn Some...
Everyone has heard of the old saying "you win some and you lose some". Its true, I guess, because no person, group, or cause ever wins every battle and there are always setbacks to any conflict, even if the overall outcome is a win.
It has seemed in the past that the battle for rationality against superstition, pseudoscience, and other nonsense has been a losing one, but there have been a few impressive wins more recently.
Maybe the greatest win for rationality over superstition was the Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District case of December 2005. That was the one which threw out and totally destroyed the latest creationist attack on science. The judge was damning (isn't that an ironic word) in his criticism of ID and included this in his decision: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." Ouch!
Another significant battle is currently proceeding in the UK. Noted author Simon Singh dared to criticise chiropractic. Here's what he said: "You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
There's nothing in that which appears controversial to anyone who has any sort of rational opinion on the subject but Britain's antiquated libel laws meant it was possible for the British Chiropractic Association to sue Singh.
The worldwide skeptical community has really got behind him, both because a lot of chiropractic treatment is simple nonsense and because the law which allowed the suit is ridiculous. According to a recent Guardian article, one in four chiropractors in Britain are being investigated as the result of campaign by supporters of Singh. The global skeptical community does have some power after all!
Another, similar incident occurred recently related to homeopathy. Homeopathy is pure nonsense - much more so than chiropractic which at least can potentially be a therapeutic massage. Skeptics staged a worldwide demonstration of the lack of effect homeopathic remedies have by taking overdoses. Homeopaths were forced to admit there's actually no active ingredient in their remedies.
And on the Sydney Morning Herald web site I found a nice article featuring Richard Dawkins demonstrating how silly creationists are and what a ridiculous idea the Noah's Ark myth is. But as he pointed out, a large percentage of the population in the most powerful country on Earth believe this junk - something that a kindergarten kid should see through!
Dawkins, and other well-known atheists, are getting more respectful and fair treatment from the mainstream media now, and their material on the internet (at sites like YouTube) is widely supported. So it seems that the ultimate form of nonsense, religion, is also under attack.
So I think that skepticism and rationality have gained a few wins recently. In every area, maybe, except climate change, but a lot of that is due to the ineptitude of a few climate scientists. That was a loss but, as they say: you win some and you lose some!
It has seemed in the past that the battle for rationality against superstition, pseudoscience, and other nonsense has been a losing one, but there have been a few impressive wins more recently.
Maybe the greatest win for rationality over superstition was the Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District case of December 2005. That was the one which threw out and totally destroyed the latest creationist attack on science. The judge was damning (isn't that an ironic word) in his criticism of ID and included this in his decision: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." Ouch!
Another significant battle is currently proceeding in the UK. Noted author Simon Singh dared to criticise chiropractic. Here's what he said: "You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
There's nothing in that which appears controversial to anyone who has any sort of rational opinion on the subject but Britain's antiquated libel laws meant it was possible for the British Chiropractic Association to sue Singh.
The worldwide skeptical community has really got behind him, both because a lot of chiropractic treatment is simple nonsense and because the law which allowed the suit is ridiculous. According to a recent Guardian article, one in four chiropractors in Britain are being investigated as the result of campaign by supporters of Singh. The global skeptical community does have some power after all!
Another, similar incident occurred recently related to homeopathy. Homeopathy is pure nonsense - much more so than chiropractic which at least can potentially be a therapeutic massage. Skeptics staged a worldwide demonstration of the lack of effect homeopathic remedies have by taking overdoses. Homeopaths were forced to admit there's actually no active ingredient in their remedies.
And on the Sydney Morning Herald web site I found a nice article featuring Richard Dawkins demonstrating how silly creationists are and what a ridiculous idea the Noah's Ark myth is. But as he pointed out, a large percentage of the population in the most powerful country on Earth believe this junk - something that a kindergarten kid should see through!
Dawkins, and other well-known atheists, are getting more respectful and fair treatment from the mainstream media now, and their material on the internet (at sites like YouTube) is widely supported. So it seems that the ultimate form of nonsense, religion, is also under attack.
So I think that skepticism and rationality have gained a few wins recently. In every area, maybe, except climate change, but a lot of that is due to the ineptitude of a few climate scientists. That was a loss but, as they say: you win some and you lose some!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
A Step Forward?
In the last few entries here on New Zealand politics I have been a bit critical of the current government so I think its time to be a bit more positive again. I try to avoid political affiliations - even though I concede I am basically moderately left in my political views - so I do try to compliment the parties I would normally be critical of when they get something right.
The issue I want to comment on is the management of New Zealand's crown research institutions (or CRIs). These are scientific organisations which are run by the government to produce scientific discoveries which can be used to improve the country in some practical way - which usually means economically.
The problem in the past (and its a problem shared by all research organisations here) is that the competitive contestable funding model has been a disaster. It has meant a lot of work by highly skilled and specialised scientists to produce proposals for funding that they usually didn't get. It has created an environment of competition with other organisations where cooperation would have been better. And it has created a feeling of despair amongst many working scientists.
So I was pleased with what I heard in an interview discussing the findings of a task force on management of CRIs. Task forces seem like a good way to get reliable, expert information on a topic but they are often mis-used by making their terms of reference too specific or by stacking their members with people of a particular political persuasion. The silly stuff dreamed up by the tax task force (or working party or whatever it was) would be a classic example.
This task force seems to have recognised the problems I mentioned above and recommended a less competitive system with a less bureaucratic funding model for the future. Of course the recommendations haven't been implemented, and the common sense ideas could easily be sabotaged by the free market nutters in the right wing of National and in Act, but I think the signs are that there might be genuine progress being made.
Here's a few points I picked up from the interview...
Many of the CRIs were working reasonably well, but that was more despite the current system than because of it. Lessening the bureaucracy and backing away from the competitive system should improve the CRIs' performance further.
There is a need for more collaboration but that is discouraged by the current competitive system. Why would one organisation cooperate with another that it is in competition for funds with?
CRIs must be accountable. This is a fairly safe statement of course because everyone should be accountable in some way. But what it actually means is very much open to question and I heard very little detail on this. In my experience greater accountability often leads to greater bureaucracy and a lessening in overall quality which achieves the exact opposite of what was originally intended!
CRIs are intended to be source of practical science where universities are intended more for pure science (without any immediate economic advantage). This is fair enough. I think science can be used for both. The pure science, which is often criticised because it does seem impractical, is how real progress is made so that does need to continue and as long as that happens I think this is OK.
One subject which was sidestepped was the possibility of increased funding for CRIs. The comment was made that the structure needs to be fixed first then the funding can be allocated appropriately. Well yes, fair enough, as long as the funding is made available because science in New Zealand is very much underfunded and the private sector is failing in this area, leaving the government as the major funding source.
I am not much of an enthusiast for the commercialisation of science so I think the government funding model is preferred anyway. If commercial input into practical science projects could be made that's fine, as long as the pure science is left as it is.
So yes, this did seem to be a step forward. If the previous government had one big fault it was in its tendency to create bureaucracies. I have no objection to these being dismantled as long as that isn't used as an excuse to downsize useful institutions as well.
The issue I want to comment on is the management of New Zealand's crown research institutions (or CRIs). These are scientific organisations which are run by the government to produce scientific discoveries which can be used to improve the country in some practical way - which usually means economically.
The problem in the past (and its a problem shared by all research organisations here) is that the competitive contestable funding model has been a disaster. It has meant a lot of work by highly skilled and specialised scientists to produce proposals for funding that they usually didn't get. It has created an environment of competition with other organisations where cooperation would have been better. And it has created a feeling of despair amongst many working scientists.
So I was pleased with what I heard in an interview discussing the findings of a task force on management of CRIs. Task forces seem like a good way to get reliable, expert information on a topic but they are often mis-used by making their terms of reference too specific or by stacking their members with people of a particular political persuasion. The silly stuff dreamed up by the tax task force (or working party or whatever it was) would be a classic example.
This task force seems to have recognised the problems I mentioned above and recommended a less competitive system with a less bureaucratic funding model for the future. Of course the recommendations haven't been implemented, and the common sense ideas could easily be sabotaged by the free market nutters in the right wing of National and in Act, but I think the signs are that there might be genuine progress being made.
Here's a few points I picked up from the interview...
Many of the CRIs were working reasonably well, but that was more despite the current system than because of it. Lessening the bureaucracy and backing away from the competitive system should improve the CRIs' performance further.
There is a need for more collaboration but that is discouraged by the current competitive system. Why would one organisation cooperate with another that it is in competition for funds with?
CRIs must be accountable. This is a fairly safe statement of course because everyone should be accountable in some way. But what it actually means is very much open to question and I heard very little detail on this. In my experience greater accountability often leads to greater bureaucracy and a lessening in overall quality which achieves the exact opposite of what was originally intended!
CRIs are intended to be source of practical science where universities are intended more for pure science (without any immediate economic advantage). This is fair enough. I think science can be used for both. The pure science, which is often criticised because it does seem impractical, is how real progress is made so that does need to continue and as long as that happens I think this is OK.
One subject which was sidestepped was the possibility of increased funding for CRIs. The comment was made that the structure needs to be fixed first then the funding can be allocated appropriately. Well yes, fair enough, as long as the funding is made available because science in New Zealand is very much underfunded and the private sector is failing in this area, leaving the government as the major funding source.
I am not much of an enthusiast for the commercialisation of science so I think the government funding model is preferred anyway. If commercial input into practical science projects could be made that's fine, as long as the pure science is left as it is.
So yes, this did seem to be a step forward. If the previous government had one big fault it was in its tendency to create bureaucracies. I have no objection to these being dismantled as long as that isn't used as an excuse to downsize useful institutions as well.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Militant Atheism
If you have read this blog much in the past you will have gathered by now that I'm a fairly vocal atheist. I'm not worried about expressing the opinion that every religion I know of is both untrue and detrimental to the greater good of civilisation in general. Of course I readily admit that none of this is absolute: we can't prove for sure that all religions are fake and I don't believe there are absolutely no good aspects of religion.
Although I'm certainly not worried about making my points firmly and clearly and I don't think that religion deserves any special amount of tolerance or respect, I still try to avoid being obnoxious and "starting a fight". For example, I only debate with religious people if they start the interaction themselves. And I try to stick to facts rather than just being insulting.
On the other hand, freedom of speech is important and I have made no secret of the idea that I think criticism of religion is a good thing. But there is a fair and reasonable compromise between respect and criticism which must be found. In many cases in the past religion has been given too much respect but that's no reason to try to balance that by now giving it too little. A related point is that its OK to criticise beliefs and actions but not so good to criticise people.
So what's all of this about? In Britain a "militant atheist", by the name of Harry Taylor is being tried for what is described as "three counts of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress" after he placed insulting cartoons in a prayer room at Liverpool's John Lennon Airport.
I haven't seen the cartoons but descriptions indicate some of them are crude and offensive (pigs excreting sausages labelled "Koran"). This does not serve the cause of atheism well and I don't think that simple insults like this really prove anything except that the person who produced them likes to take serious debate to a crude and primitive level.
Saying the Koran is nothing better than pig excrement is really not the sort of argument which is likely to give the atheist cause a good name. Atheism should be based on rationality and careful examination of the facts, not on simple scatological humour.
On the other hand, there was some quite witty and humorous stuff as well. For example, an image of Christ on a cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue. (that's actually quite funny) And Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told: " Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." (that makes a valid political point, I think).
So would it be appropriate to have any sort of anti-religious material in a prayer room? That is a harder question to answer. If the believers are using the room and not bothering anyone else then there is an argument to say they should be left alone. But there is another argument to say that people who take their religion so seriously that they can't even take a flight without stopping to pray are dangerous and their motivation should be questioned.
Of course, its unlikely that a poster of any sort would be effective in moving someone from a belief system which is as well embedded in their brains, as tends to be the case with devout believers, so even from a practical perspective its not a great idea.
Sometimes I visit atheist web sites which examine religion from a rational perspective and I see ads (usually provided by Google) which invite me to visit a different site and see how "great Jesus really is" or something similar. So I am exposed (without asking) to material which is contrary to my philosophical perspective.
Is this any different from having an atheist poster in a prayer room? Probably not much as long as the material is reasonably presented and not just insulting. If I did see material insulting to atheists that would lessen my opinion of the believers. I'm sure the same is true for the religious people in the airport seeing the insulting posters.
So I don't think this case has much to do with free speech. Everyone should understand that free speech must have limits. I would like this person to be prosecuted: not to protect the delicate sensibilities of the believers but to protect the standard we all expect from atheists - even if they are militant!
Although I'm certainly not worried about making my points firmly and clearly and I don't think that religion deserves any special amount of tolerance or respect, I still try to avoid being obnoxious and "starting a fight". For example, I only debate with religious people if they start the interaction themselves. And I try to stick to facts rather than just being insulting.
On the other hand, freedom of speech is important and I have made no secret of the idea that I think criticism of religion is a good thing. But there is a fair and reasonable compromise between respect and criticism which must be found. In many cases in the past religion has been given too much respect but that's no reason to try to balance that by now giving it too little. A related point is that its OK to criticise beliefs and actions but not so good to criticise people.
So what's all of this about? In Britain a "militant atheist", by the name of Harry Taylor is being tried for what is described as "three counts of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress" after he placed insulting cartoons in a prayer room at Liverpool's John Lennon Airport.
I haven't seen the cartoons but descriptions indicate some of them are crude and offensive (pigs excreting sausages labelled "Koran"). This does not serve the cause of atheism well and I don't think that simple insults like this really prove anything except that the person who produced them likes to take serious debate to a crude and primitive level.
Saying the Koran is nothing better than pig excrement is really not the sort of argument which is likely to give the atheist cause a good name. Atheism should be based on rationality and careful examination of the facts, not on simple scatological humour.
On the other hand, there was some quite witty and humorous stuff as well. For example, an image of Christ on a cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue. (that's actually quite funny) And Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told: " Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." (that makes a valid political point, I think).
So would it be appropriate to have any sort of anti-religious material in a prayer room? That is a harder question to answer. If the believers are using the room and not bothering anyone else then there is an argument to say they should be left alone. But there is another argument to say that people who take their religion so seriously that they can't even take a flight without stopping to pray are dangerous and their motivation should be questioned.
Of course, its unlikely that a poster of any sort would be effective in moving someone from a belief system which is as well embedded in their brains, as tends to be the case with devout believers, so even from a practical perspective its not a great idea.
Sometimes I visit atheist web sites which examine religion from a rational perspective and I see ads (usually provided by Google) which invite me to visit a different site and see how "great Jesus really is" or something similar. So I am exposed (without asking) to material which is contrary to my philosophical perspective.
Is this any different from having an atheist poster in a prayer room? Probably not much as long as the material is reasonably presented and not just insulting. If I did see material insulting to atheists that would lessen my opinion of the believers. I'm sure the same is true for the religious people in the airport seeing the insulting posters.
So I don't think this case has much to do with free speech. Everyone should understand that free speech must have limits. I would like this person to be prosecuted: not to protect the delicate sensibilities of the believers but to protect the standard we all expect from atheists - even if they are militant!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
More About Multiverses
When I first got involved with amateur astronomy the idea of a multiverse was either not taken seriously at all or it was considered to be so much on the edge of science that it wasn't really science at all. I've noticed over the last few years that this has changed though. It now seems that its almost the default position for many cosmologists that the big bang might have been just a "local" event which created our universe and that it could be just a part of a larger, probably infinite (in time and space) multiverse.
The problem is that I still haven't seen any real evidence that a multiverse exists and I still don't know of any experiment which has been proposed which is accepted would even give evidence for or against the idea.
Philosophically the idea is very attractive. The idea that the universe originated 13.7 billion years ago in a big bang is practically certain but there must have been something before that, even if it was just a set of physical laws or processes which allowed a big bang to happen. That applies even if you do accept the conventional explanation that time and space were created in the big bang.
As I have explained in previous blog entries, I find the idea of a multiverse quite compelling. It means the greater universe (or multiverse) has always existed and will always exist which avoids questions about what happens before and after our universe's existence. And it explains why our universe has the attributes it does, especially the fine tuned physical constants which make life possible - because its one of many (probably an infinite number) and the others probably don't have the same attributes - in fact, many could be better tuned for life.
As well as several serious, but speculative, items on multiverse theories I recently also came across an opinion by well known scientist, science administrator, and religious writer, Francis Collins.
Its interesting to contrast the far reaching and intellectually honest search for genuine answers to these questions with the primitive nonsense people like Collins come up with. He has some puerile argument that the fine tuned universe proves a god exists, and he quite ridiculously extends this to support the Christian god. Its like comparing the theories of a great philosopher and a three year old child. Yes, Collins is actually a scientist but listen to him talk first about his science and then his religion and it sounds like two different people: first the wise scientists, then the three year old!
It reminds me of a great quote, attributed to the fictional TV character House: "If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people." Good point!
The problem is that I still haven't seen any real evidence that a multiverse exists and I still don't know of any experiment which has been proposed which is accepted would even give evidence for or against the idea.
Philosophically the idea is very attractive. The idea that the universe originated 13.7 billion years ago in a big bang is practically certain but there must have been something before that, even if it was just a set of physical laws or processes which allowed a big bang to happen. That applies even if you do accept the conventional explanation that time and space were created in the big bang.
As I have explained in previous blog entries, I find the idea of a multiverse quite compelling. It means the greater universe (or multiverse) has always existed and will always exist which avoids questions about what happens before and after our universe's existence. And it explains why our universe has the attributes it does, especially the fine tuned physical constants which make life possible - because its one of many (probably an infinite number) and the others probably don't have the same attributes - in fact, many could be better tuned for life.
As well as several serious, but speculative, items on multiverse theories I recently also came across an opinion by well known scientist, science administrator, and religious writer, Francis Collins.
Its interesting to contrast the far reaching and intellectually honest search for genuine answers to these questions with the primitive nonsense people like Collins come up with. He has some puerile argument that the fine tuned universe proves a god exists, and he quite ridiculously extends this to support the Christian god. Its like comparing the theories of a great philosopher and a three year old child. Yes, Collins is actually a scientist but listen to him talk first about his science and then his religion and it sounds like two different people: first the wise scientists, then the three year old!
It reminds me of a great quote, attributed to the fictional TV character House: "If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people." Good point!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Evil Propaganda
A friend left a couple of interesting items on my desk this morning: two small booklets distributed by some sort of evangelical Christian organisation, possibly the NZ Evangelistic Society, based on the contact information on the back. Let the rant begin...
When I first saw them I thought they might have been some sort of naive and extreme propaganda of the sort distributed in the 1950s or maybe some sort of Nazi or Stalinist material used in simpler times when people took this sort of thing seriously. But amazingly the copyright dates are 1999 and 2004. Someone still thinks this sort of stuff works!
So what particular pro-Christian theme did these little gems push? The first one covered the old anti-evolution theme and the second concentrated on how everyone deserves to burn in Hell but could be saved by Christ.
The anti-evolution stuff first. Like most material of this sort it was a mixture of lies, misinformation and loathsome propaganda. Honestly the people who produce this stuff really are nothing but scum. Not only are they clearly wrong but they stop at nothing to push their nonsense onto other people. What made it even worse was this material seemed to be aimed at children. Honestly I think Richard Dawkins has a point when he points out that some of this stuff is a form of child abuse.
Specific examples of the insidious garbage in this material included: a teacher who taught evolution portrayed as an evil, ugly person who accepted no criticism and punished anyone who disagreed. I have never seen this sort of character in real life and its an obvious attempt at an "ad hominem" attack and "poisoning the well", as well as being just plain dishonest.
Then there's the tired old story about us "coming from monkeys". This has been explained to the creationist idiots so many times that they are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. There is no way that anyone should be producing a booklet on the subject who still thinks humans evolved from monkeys. Yet again, for the millionth time: humans and apes (and monkeys) evolved from the same common ancestor. Its a fact, get over it.
Then the teacher claims god is a liar. This is unlikely because if the person believes in a god they are likely to think the Bible has been misinterpreted rather than God deliberately lying, and if they don't believe a god even exists how can it lie?
So it just goes on and on with each new piece of garbage even worse than the previous, but the most despicable material is left for the end. It says "If you believe in evolution instead of Jesus then you'll end up in Hell." Do they really believe that, and if they do believe it do they think that's OK? Is that different in any way to Stalin sending anyone who disagreed with him to the salt mines in Siberia. Actually, its worse!
Its purely disgusting. Even if it was true should we believe in a god who is such a bully? He provides us with thousands of reasons to believe in evolution and none to believe him and then punishes us when we use the logical thought processes he (allegedly) gave us. All Christians should revolt against this hideous god they have created.
Well that was quite a rant, wasn't it? Unfortunately the second book was even worse. It dealt more with the horrible philosophy Christianity is based on more than the lies and propaganda it uses to support itself.
It tells the story of a priceless carpet made from the hair of white tigers (very environmentally responsible). An aristocratic character is about to show it to a visitor but a lazy servant has sneaked into the room where the carpet is and when the door is opened some ink (or other chemical) he is carrying is spilt and the carpet is stained. The stain can't be removed so the owner insists that the carpet is burned.
The comparison is made between the stained carpet not being allowed to stay in the castle and a person with a defect in their character not being allowed in heaven. Its also pointed out that everyone has sinned so they deserve to be sent to Hell. And the reason we are all sinners is because of the original sin of Adam (who is portrayed being fooled by a crafty looking Eve - a great example of misogyny in the Bible).
Being a good person doesn't help and you are only saved by faith not through your works. What a great message to send to people: you start out being bad because of something someone did 6000 years ago, you can't be saved by being a good person, and you must obey one particular religion without question if you want to avoid the worst torture imaginable.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Christianity is one of the most evil, sick, despicable belief systems the human race has ever invented, We would all be so much better off if it had never existed. I just hope the scum who are distributing this evil propaganda visit me so I can point out a few problems with their disgusting beliefs!
Here endeth the rant.
When I first saw them I thought they might have been some sort of naive and extreme propaganda of the sort distributed in the 1950s or maybe some sort of Nazi or Stalinist material used in simpler times when people took this sort of thing seriously. But amazingly the copyright dates are 1999 and 2004. Someone still thinks this sort of stuff works!
So what particular pro-Christian theme did these little gems push? The first one covered the old anti-evolution theme and the second concentrated on how everyone deserves to burn in Hell but could be saved by Christ.
The anti-evolution stuff first. Like most material of this sort it was a mixture of lies, misinformation and loathsome propaganda. Honestly the people who produce this stuff really are nothing but scum. Not only are they clearly wrong but they stop at nothing to push their nonsense onto other people. What made it even worse was this material seemed to be aimed at children. Honestly I think Richard Dawkins has a point when he points out that some of this stuff is a form of child abuse.
Specific examples of the insidious garbage in this material included: a teacher who taught evolution portrayed as an evil, ugly person who accepted no criticism and punished anyone who disagreed. I have never seen this sort of character in real life and its an obvious attempt at an "ad hominem" attack and "poisoning the well", as well as being just plain dishonest.
Then there's the tired old story about us "coming from monkeys". This has been explained to the creationist idiots so many times that they are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. There is no way that anyone should be producing a booklet on the subject who still thinks humans evolved from monkeys. Yet again, for the millionth time: humans and apes (and monkeys) evolved from the same common ancestor. Its a fact, get over it.
Then the teacher claims god is a liar. This is unlikely because if the person believes in a god they are likely to think the Bible has been misinterpreted rather than God deliberately lying, and if they don't believe a god even exists how can it lie?
So it just goes on and on with each new piece of garbage even worse than the previous, but the most despicable material is left for the end. It says "If you believe in evolution instead of Jesus then you'll end up in Hell." Do they really believe that, and if they do believe it do they think that's OK? Is that different in any way to Stalin sending anyone who disagreed with him to the salt mines in Siberia. Actually, its worse!
Its purely disgusting. Even if it was true should we believe in a god who is such a bully? He provides us with thousands of reasons to believe in evolution and none to believe him and then punishes us when we use the logical thought processes he (allegedly) gave us. All Christians should revolt against this hideous god they have created.
Well that was quite a rant, wasn't it? Unfortunately the second book was even worse. It dealt more with the horrible philosophy Christianity is based on more than the lies and propaganda it uses to support itself.
It tells the story of a priceless carpet made from the hair of white tigers (very environmentally responsible). An aristocratic character is about to show it to a visitor but a lazy servant has sneaked into the room where the carpet is and when the door is opened some ink (or other chemical) he is carrying is spilt and the carpet is stained. The stain can't be removed so the owner insists that the carpet is burned.
The comparison is made between the stained carpet not being allowed to stay in the castle and a person with a defect in their character not being allowed in heaven. Its also pointed out that everyone has sinned so they deserve to be sent to Hell. And the reason we are all sinners is because of the original sin of Adam (who is portrayed being fooled by a crafty looking Eve - a great example of misogyny in the Bible).
Being a good person doesn't help and you are only saved by faith not through your works. What a great message to send to people: you start out being bad because of something someone did 6000 years ago, you can't be saved by being a good person, and you must obey one particular religion without question if you want to avoid the worst torture imaginable.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Christianity is one of the most evil, sick, despicable belief systems the human race has ever invented, We would all be so much better off if it had never existed. I just hope the scum who are distributing this evil propaganda visit me so I can point out a few problems with their disgusting beliefs!
Here endeth the rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
